P L D 1961 W (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAWALPINDI‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAWALPINDI‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAWALPINDI‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
- S. Ali Wah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Permits of all except A made permanent‑A's case similar‑A's permit to be also made permanent.
Judgment & Decree
Route permit‑Permits of all except A made permanent‑A's case similar‑A's permit to be also made permanent. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. S. Ali Wah for Respondent. The admitted facts of this appeal are that several person including the two appellants had helped the administration in an emergency by offering their vehicles and were subsequently granted temporary public carrier permits which were renewed from year. In 9-7‑58 the permits of almost all of them were made permanent as a result of a decision by one of my learned predecessors in appeal. The present appellants, however, had not approached the Board of Revenue and the R. T. A., when they were requested by the two appellants to treat their cases similarly, met with a refusal on the ground that they had not appealed against the original order of the R. T. A. After the filing of the present appeal one of the appellants Ghulam Hussain made another attempt and the R. T. A. granted him a permit so that it is only Ghulam Muhammad whose case ha; to be considered by me. There are no reasons why he should be the sole exception when public carrier permits have been granted to all oil ears. As a matter of fact no reason have been put forward or, behalf the R. T. A. I would, therefore, accept his appeal and direct that a public carrier permit should be granted to him also. As already observed the appeal of Ghulam Bussain is infructuous as he has already been granted a permit. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.